Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!

Been skimming through the pages of this thread to make my decision on my projector purchase and get close and then start to rethink.

I am between the JVC RS46 and the Sony HW50. I have a 120" wide scope screen and want to be able to fill the screen for scope movies. With Sony not having motorized lens on the upcoming HW55 it would appear the JVC is the clear winner. The thing is I would like to game in the home theater and JVC's input lag is higher.

My other idea, which adds costs, would be to throw in a Lumagen mini to the Sony and stretch everything to 2.35. Unfortunately there seems to be no easy answer unless someone has experience gaming on JVC.

Been skimming through the pages of this thread to make my decision on my projector purchase and get close and then start to rethink.

I am between the JVC RS46 and the Sony HW50. I have a 120" wide scope screen and want to be able to fill the screen for scope movies. With Sony not having motorized lens on the upcoming HW55 it would appear the JVC is the clear winner. The thing is I would like to game in the home theater and JVC's input lag is higher.

My other idea, which adds costs, would be to throw in a Lumagen mini to the Sony and stretch everything to 2.35. Unfortunately there seems to be no easy answer unless someone has experience gaming on JVC.

Thanks,

In your setup, can you mount a 2nd projector dedicated just for gaming? There are some low cost DLP's that have low lag time that could be an option. The RS46 is less expensive than the HW50 and upcoming HW55 so the extra $$ could go towards the gaming projector.

the R46 is more naturally sharp than the HW50. The reality creation is good but can introduce some artifacts in certain content. Buying the lumagen for the Sony seems like a high cost since it would mainly be used for the scaling, neither the hw50 or RS46 really requires the power of the lumagens calibration abilities.

I have never played on-line FPS and most of my gaming would be localized if not all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zombie10k

In your setup, can you mount a 2nd projector dedicated just for gaming? There are some low cost DLP's that have low lag time that could be an option. The RS46 is less expensive than the HW50 and upcoming HW55 so the extra $$ could go towards the gaming projector.

the R46 is more naturally sharp than the HW50. The reality creation is good but can introduce some artifacts in certain content. Buying the lumagen for the Sony seems like a high cost since it would mainly be used for the scaling, neither the hw50 or RS46 really requires the power of the lumagens calibration abilities.

Quote:

Is your gaming localized or on-line FPS gaming?

I might then lean towards the RS-46. Is gaming on it locally acceptable?

Thanks Zombie10k I really appreciate your input its just difficult to find one projector that will fit my needs. Either one comes with a caveat or something I won't know until I have it in my theater. I could find the JVC ok to game on and be set, I could not.

I could find the Sony with Lumagen an awesome combination where I can make any source fit my screen and be happy, or regret it as it comes up short.

The rumor of the Sony HW55ES with motorized zoom was the holy grail of what I was looking for.

I might then lean towards the RS-46. Is gaming on it locally acceptable?

Yes, but only if you live non-locally in Mexico.

The hd131xe is the cheapest Optoma 1080p DLP with 3D that should have low lag (haven't seen lag test results though), the hd25 definitely has low lag but costs a bit more. There is also the Acer h6510bd or the Viewsonic 7820hd. The Optomas aren't the sharpest projectors if you are going to be doing a lot of HTPC reading or playing games with microscopic text (like some PC games). The Benq w1070 is sharper but also louder and has to be mounted closer.

The Viewsonic is the brightest one out of all these and the cheapest (measured at 3600 Lumens brightest mode by Art @ PR, even though only rated at 3000), but it has a white segment in the color wheel. I think all these have a white segment in the color wheel EXCEPT the w1070 which is RGBRGB, the others are RGBCYW or whatever.

The hd131xe is the cheapest Optoma 1080p DLP with 3D that should have low lag (haven't seen lag test results though), the hd25 definitely has low lag but costs a bit more. There is also the Acer h6510bd or the Viewsonic 7220hd. The Optomas aren't the sharpest projectors if you are going to be doing a lot of HTPC reading or playing games with microscopic text (like some PC games). The Benq w1070 is sharper but also louder and has to be mounted closer.

The Viewsonic is the brightest one out of all these and the cheapest (measured at 3600 Lumens brightest mode by Art @ PR, even though only rated at 3000), but it has a white segment in the color wheel. I think all these have a white segment in the color wheel EXCEPT the w1070 which is RGBRGB, the others are RGBCYW or whatever.

So you are suggesting like zombie a two projector solution. Locally speaking of course.

I read your list of projector rankings and it was a good read. Still thinking about the JVC as it hits two of the three things on my list. Gaming seems to be the only question people ask when choosing them. Haven't seen too many replies though from owners.

The Sony also hits two of the three and to get the third it would cost extra and not sure how scaling everything would end up looking like but would be the only way without manually refocusing.

I wish I could do 2 projectors in my house. The JVC for movies and the cheaper DLPs for gaming and TV without worrying about bulb use. Since I couldn't do it, I went with the Sony. I absolutely love it so far.

My only gaming experience with a JVC is a couple hours of online 4 player Borderlands on Xbox Live, on a JVC RS35. I didn't notice any difference at all compared to playing at home on my plasma tv, and had no idea latency was an issue until reading these forums. Now that I'm considering getting a JVC for myself (that RS35 was a friend's that I housesat for), I wish I had paid more attention and done some more tests.

So you are suggesting like zombie a two projector solution. Locally speaking of course.

Still thinking about the JVC as it hits two of the three things on my list. Gaming seems to be the only question people ask when choosing them. Haven't seen too many replies though from owners.

The JVC should be fine for MOST non-competitive gaming, whether that be online or offline. I'm sure there are a few single player games where the lag can matter (like maybe a timing game, guitar hero?). The JVC is useless if you do 3D gaming though, but 3D gaming is mostly useless in and of itself IMO. I've played about 5-10 different games on the JVC and on a low-lag DLP, it's not that much different in the sense of lag feel I guess, though you can tell if you pay really close attention.

I would get a second projector for many reasons, one to keep the hours off the more expensive primary.

Been skimming through the pages of this thread to make my decision on my projector purchase and get close and then start to rethink.

I am between the JVC RS46 and the Sony HW50. I have a 120" wide scope screen and want to be able to fill the screen for scope movies. With Sony not having motorized lens on the upcoming HW55 it would appear the JVC is the clear winner. The thing is I would like to game in the home theater and JVC's input lag is higher.

My other idea, which adds costs, would be to throw in a Lumagen mini to the Sony and stretch everything to 2.35. Unfortunately there seems to be no easy answer unless someone has experience gaming on JVC.

Thanks,

I think I replied to anotehr post of yours, but the JVC and Lumagen would add up to around 120ms of input lag JVC - 80, Lumagen 40ish... That to me would be hard to get over, that's very noticeable. Granted if you are going to play slower paces games like oblivion or something along those lines you might not notice it.

I think I replied to anotehr post of yours, but the JVC and Lumagen would add up to around 120ms of input lag JVC - 80, Lumagen 40ish... That to me would be hard to get over, that's very noticeable. Granted if you are going to play slower paces games like oblivion or something along those lines you might not notice it.

If I were to get the JVC I would most likely not use the Lumagen since I would have the zoom feature. The Sony lacks the zoom feature which is why I was considering using the Lumagen with the Sony.

Looks like if I were to do that, both projectors would essentially have the same lag time then.

Planar DLP calibration - I turned off the dynamic black during the calibration and the default gamma setting is close to accurate.

The gray scale only requires very minor tweaks to the gains and offset values. The default R709 setting is also close. Check out the saturation track, it's quite good.

I'm still going to run it through the 125 pt auto cal. Being this close is the best case scenario for the lumagen, the least work it has to do, the better imo.

So this projector with ~95 hours on the lamp has near perfect calibration out of the box. If I use this projector for nothing else, it's nice to have a reference model when comparing the other projectors 'out of the box' experience.

The HW50 is the next closest with near perfect gamma and color gamut. But every Sony I calibrated this year definitely needed help with the grayscale. This is no different than the JVC's, Epson, etc. Some projectors needs some serious help out of the box. This is confusing, these are measurable values, why aren't the manufacturers giving these other projectors a basic calibration before shipping? My RS55 doesn't have 1 default gamma setting that is close to accurate. The Epson and Panasonic are a pain here as well.

I haven't seen the discussion on the unishape in a long time. Some tech info from Planar. This was a great idea to increase the light output for the red segment so it can be the same size as the other segments.

seegs, did this Unishape technology from Osram ever make it into the less expensive .65 DLP's ?

The lamp is still analog, it's amazing they are able to pulse the lamp output fast enough to coincide with a CW spinning 8k -11k RPM.

Not that I know of. The technology is similar to what Sony did with the HW50 by pulsing the lamp. The only other projectors I know of that use Unishape are from Sim2 in the HT3000E and D80E. There are probably others out there but I haven't read up much on it.

I read that last night, it looks like it predates the release of the Planars, at the time only Sim2 used it. There was some discussion about Optoma using it, but it was wrong info.

It's nice to see they focused energy on providing a good out of the box experience in regard to color calibration. I wonder why Runco didn't upgrade this with a brighter lamp and 3D capability?

They do. They have a HB (high brightness) version. It's the Runco LS-HB and they released a 3D version called the x200i which is the same light engine and lens options with added 3D support with a new chassis design. It's an ugly chassis design in my opinion, though.

I'm going to bet the Runco is a bit better than the Sharp. On/Off contrast would probably be lower on the Sharp anyhow, and the Runco IRIS probably beats it. Runco IRIS beats the Epson IRIS easy, but maybe not the Sony (wait and see what Zombie says)...

i've been waiting a while to get a saturday where i had some free time to see all of these side by side.

This is a nice sample 8130, the lens and overall focus uniformity is very good. Pixels are well defined and sharp.

The pixel structure on the 30k is less defined but still very good considering it's a .65 and likely a less quality less. I have the sharpness turned all the way down on the 30k and stock setting on the 8130. There must still be some mild process on the 30k because they look very similar from 14 feet to the 142" 16:9. Color is better on the Planar. Overall it's a more refined image in a direct A/B and overall PQ does looks nice and natural.

If was using the 8130 / 30k setup, I would use the sharp for TV (~950 lumens) and 3D and the Planar for critical 2D viewing. Contrast held up better in low APL scenes on the Planar but appeared similar in mixed contrast scenes. If Sharp was smart, they should have street priced the 30k @ ~3K and it might have had a chance since the 3D is so good.

I haven't spent much time yet with the 8130 and the RS55 but did a few A/B using Oblivion and testing e-shift on/off. This RS55 is a good copy and has a nice lens with good sharpness. intra-pixel MTF isn't that far off from the Planar, closer than I was expecting. With e-shift off, they appear similar in sharpness at seating distance. When I turn the e-shift on, the favor immediately goes to the JVC. The increased pixel density + mild MPC sharpening does a heck of job fooling the eye that i'm seeing a slightly higher resolution image.

This really messes with the concept in the video-vantage article of pixel MTF and it's relationship to perceived sharpness (they did say with video content, the RS35 performed similar the Samsung .95) Obviously if I'm using an HTPC the Planar is going to look sharper with text. Video content is different and the response of the e-shift process throws a monkey wrench into the concept of sharp pixels = sharp image.

Both projectors throw an excellent image so I have to spend more time looking at these later this weekend.

It's interesting that the PD8130 has better contrast with low APL scenes over the Sharp Z30k. I was expecting more I guess. I had an LS-1 (eco-mode locked PD8130) next to my PD8150 to A/B and the PD8150 was noticeably better with low APL scenes. This is really making me debate selling the PD8150 but I figure if I don't keep it up for sale I won't be pushed to get the 1000ES.

it's hard to get the light equalized between the 2, I have to look at closer before making a final determination. I also need to check the gamma on the 30k to make sure it's tuned right to match the 2.2 on the Planar.

I'll check some native #'s when I get a chance, I actually have a few movies lined up later to watch. (put the calibration gear away)

It's a great lens, but isn't as nice as the Marantz VP11/15 series or the Samsung SP-A800B/900B lenses which were noticeably better to my eyes. You can make a fairly good judgement on .95" DLP sharpness based on it's performance but there is still a definite step up with the aforementioned projectors.

The Marantz definitely had higher ANSI but less on/off. The Samsung SP-A800B was pretty bad with both from what I saw. The Marantz machines put out some of the nicest imagery I've ever seen. The problem is that they aren't very bright once you enable any of the iris settings. You really need a high power screen with them. The Planar is the best all-around performer that I've seen but isn't the best at anything with the exception of it's DI to acheive great on/off for a DLP unit. It's sort of the Sony HW50ES in the .95" DLP world. Solid performance all around but isn't the best at most things. The SP-A900B is supposedly close in contrast performance, but with a better lens.